> > I still think there is a reasonable argument for allowing a simple > > default like this without custom configuration. That is currently one of > > the strong points of cdbs' simple-patchsys; it is very simple. Sure more > > flexibility is nice for some people, but having good simple standard > > default behavior can go a long ways in maximizing the utility of dpatch. > > Default always has been to use 00list or PATCHLIST, that cannot be > changed without possibly breaking every package out there relying on any > of these. Unless, this 00list-less thing happens when there really is no > 00list. That might work, but I fear it would complicate > dpatch-edit-patch a wee-bit too much. > would have to warn about that.
Yeah, the 00list-less thing would ONLY happen when there really was no 00list. In other words it is a clean, simple, effortless, straightforward, intuitive, default. And I honestly can't see how it is going to complicate anything outside of the source code. cheers, Charles -- It's a good Old Spanish custom Take your mug And brush And bust 'em Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1931/its_a_good
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
